The newbie loan scam is not a new user trying to get a loan, it is someone familiar with the forum trying to get a new loan with a brand new account, that will not result in him being held accountable when he fails to repay said loan.

The OP is being transparent that he is not guaranteeing success. It is not unusual to change for your time and not success, especially when the outcome is unknown. Criminal defense attorneys will charge for their time even if their client is found guilty.

It is especially appropriate to not guarantee outcomes when there are as many people on Bkazed’s trust list that refuse to publicly discuss or defend trust ratings and stick up for others who leave disputed ratings and advocate for these people to not be held in any way accountable.

This is not exactly being hidden very well by the OP. One might even say it should be clear to anyone that he was his own client and others are free to take this into consideration, although there is no “vouch” and I wouldn’t see the need to.
These people create accounts with the intention of getting a loan they have no intention of repaying. The amount of effort put into these scam attempts is literally under two minutes. Further, this scam relies upon someone being naive enough to quickly fund the loan before they read warnings from others. The OP has more than 2 posts and is not a newbie.

Lol, I am guessing this is in response to the WSJ article about the prevalence of fraudulent ICOs today.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone created a ERC20 contract with this same name and ended up raising a decent amount of money.

Unless you agreed for the conversation to be private, or the messages were encrypted to your PGP key, I would not consider the messages to be private.

I would not stand up for someone essentially backing out of their actions. I would suggest resolving the issue by offering to sell the coin to the otherwise high bidder and leave the offer open for a “reasonable” amount of time. Or you can otherwise try to settle with TheNewAnon in a mutually acceptable way.

I don’t see any fake vouches on the OPs thread.

The OP is free to offer his services on terms of his choice. Similarly any potential buyers of his service can ask for terms they want. If the two sides cannot agree to terms, the OP will not be able to sell his services. I don’t think it is appropriate for an unrelated third party to try to dictate terms that others can trade on. Unless the OP is being deceptive in some way, there should be no issue.

What ended up happening with that coin? Did you sell it to TheNewAnon? Or did you end up not selling it at all?

You shouldn’t be bidding on your own auction if you don’t disclose this possibility ahead of time.

Vods refusal to discuss his ratings shows his maturity and character.

This was actually done many years ago, many people viewed this person to be a scammer as a result. The forum currently uses an image proxy that makes this attack useless.


The member's table has leaked at least once, and the forum has been hacked multiple times. Your registration IP address and your last recorded IP address as of when the members table leaked is more or less public information now. An unknown amount of additional information from the other hacks is potentially essentially public information as well.

I would advise against this.

Over time, you will inevitably lose some of this information for a variety of reasons, and you can potentially be in legal trouble if you are unable to produce specific information you say you retain indefinitely, especially if you are close to the person.

I would suggest, as an alternative to instead either retain the name of the person's ISP, geolocation data, or truncated IP address (or a combination thereof) over the very long term. This is likely what you essentially will use for things like account recovery anyway and in most instances, a user's IP address will have changed after several months (and to a much greater extent, after multiple years) anyway.   

I am not sure how defending people makes you a scammer. Surely everyone has the right to present their side of a dispute....maybe suchmoon disagrees with this.

Cloudflare was implemented about two months prior to the merit system being implemented. Cloudflare should have stopped the last of the bot accounts and made it more difficult to create spam accounts manually. A lot of the spam accounts won’t care about merit because their goal was to create back links to their website, not rank up.

I would be interested to see more information about those who can’t rank up because of merit. I would be interested to see how long their posts are compared to others (specifically those who are one rank higher), where these accounts tend to post (what sections), if these people are participating in any kind of advertising campaigns, how much trust these people have sent/received.

The above information may give somewhat of an indication of how effective the merit system is working.

I am just pointing out the timing is suspect. I don’t wish harm to anyone.

Right, he was “sick” in the “hospital” immediately after he was exposed

If you assume aTriz and Lauda are not the ones behind ice rock, they were almost certainly paid; people don’t tend to work for free.

I am aware of the “proof” they claim to provide of their mining operation. There are huge gaps after reviewing said “proof”. No modern miner will allow you to triple your initial investment after a year, even with free electricity. The amount of coin a miner will earn will vary based on luck and difficulty, both of which are unpredictable. If Ice rock already is in possession of the miners, then I would question why exactly they need to raise money from investors, especially if they think they will pay for themselves in ~5 months.

I am not surprised that some people that are fairly new to the crypto economy who failed to see these red flags. However to someone like aTriz and lauda who have dealt in the crypto economy for a long time, and have seen similar scams in the past, it should have been obvious that ice rock was in some way fraudulent

It is very clearly a ponzi. They are offering 300%+ annual returns; anyone offering these levels of returns are either a ponzi or are otherwise fraudulent.

aTriz was the one who posted the bounty thread, however aTriz posted nearly all of the bounty campaigns managed by ALU. Lauda's role of managing the bounty campaigns was mostly behind the scenes and is equally responsible for running the bounty campaign of this scam. 

I would suggest contacting lauda about this. He ran the bounty campaign of this what should have been obvious ponzi.

I checked last night and it looks like the bitcointalk.org domain was banned in early 2016 and about 700 links were submitted as of the banning.

I know that Greg maxwell has had runins with the Wikipedia admins in the past, including them describing him harshly, I forget what exactly they said, but there was an incident in which he apparently used multiple sock puppets to make edits to Wikipedia pages after he was banned personally from making edits. Maybe this is somewhat related.

The forum really is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia articles anyway, so anything that is backed up by a forum post should probably be edited out even if there was no ban.

BTU was effectively cancelled. The closest thing to it currently is Bitcoin Cash, which is freely traded on many exchanges.

Ahh. Lol